' Bamm-360010. é 'q§y.2§'§i.A.J.8mmIuL' ' Adv.) N '1'H.'E- m_.!-I CQUR1' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE _ D:-"sTP....« THIS H... 16' "DAY ...F \.4!..A_Rl'J-1 008 ms I-ION'BLE MR. ru'fi'~" NAGArvio'mm' *"-- ms' j; j Tl1eMamae:nentof __ MIu.PoojnCrmionsLtd, -_ " ' A--109, Industrial Estate 2 ' L. _ " "'w'\I""'hr ---- I-\U|II VJ awanauluw-D Manager; Dan Iw'hIi1-mnl i " 5,.' nmggg V V' a 'gym . --.--__--_, ._ ----------
r”u§’3-u”‘I 5i~.”‘-I’3’u’i3. }i€a¥3 .
R13 “CS;/o_ Easivgihyvara Hotel
v.’- ____n;__…1.-.u.:_
Dassnamratu _
-Uh
This ‘vfirit Fatizim filfi .A.:1;el– 22- Q 22? of
Constitutionoflndiawitha erto
3
£5′
3
3.
3
aa
….II.I I?’
Vide ’53” ‘I”l’I’ Pun: uni? -{MOI 4’n€’u’uL”ui-‘3″:-£1 ‘u-uu””‘”-¥-” 7-
Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.l94/2001.
E/~}\v\/V
T WP.48jl-8912004!
“.11!-Iunnn
W.” VUII
Sri Shrilunt Shenoy ‘
T Sic Shonoy
[Aged about 28 yam
– R]: 0/0 Buaveshfvara Hotel
cnikkagonmmgu
(I_3ySri.A.J.Srinivuan. Adv.) M M
me Mana¢emcn_:~uf 1
‘Ila Dan}; l”‘nn¢ai”5nmo=T1’¢I
awum 5 vnqu muvnusvu-wv alum,
Rep. by % .. : :
…Recpondmt
…..
“I’LL. *a_uv.;’:… “P..4..,-,~4.-…. 4-.|-.1 …..:… A.-_|.2.,I… an: …..a one …c- 4:…
n ulna w,uI.. izuuml .I.uwu uuuul mu 1 am uuu M: III II
Conatitutionof-“i;ndiEawiflIaprayermquashflIltpm’lionoffl1eawm’d –
¢i%.5.a’s.’2£’n’i4v_vvxc!e”‘.v ex.A. passed’ by fine rm’ ‘bio “rresiamg” % um”‘”oer,
Ooun, Bangalorein I.D.No.194/2001 to the-extant the
ie..a5″gg|’icvadbyt11esameandmodify-tllat ponionofthe award,
‘ iifigfilllbackwaguwiflnllcomenumfialbmwfitstofltopetifionur
ofthetenninationtillthe dice ofreinatatomant.
II -IIWTT HUI? I-T–WI ‘VI Ill?’-I”
A X % L this day, NAGAMOHAN ms 3., pronounoad the following;
Okrv
QKILEB
M Inn: until nnfilinma nun. anon:-n-I &In- an-I—an’ J-‘-1 I II flflflifi ‘ ” -‘
um-an nu: Iuu yuullvun I? ll IIW swan: (WWI! 3.fl.l-|.l!«.I”I-‘Ell
No.i94i2i’Iiii passed by the Labour court
W.P.No.1s339I200s is filed by the agahsai”tii€:~ia:1j1i1q;;jed
emu: directing winstatmnent of workman. 1y.P.1¢e.4s149}2004% 7
by the workman being aggricwd by itbb
rebates to denial ofbackwagcs and bmefits. 1 b ;
:. in this judg1ne11t’,’b’_fi1:”‘ the 1
manmment is as is referred as
‘ 1…! – ‘IL. ms}-.. — ..__.. _I__ 4|. _
””i an rnJtwu””‘ -um: execute” unuur
El)
§
1 v-::4::
if .,
E1
:3
5
I ‘ Petitioner contends that on
2.11.2001 and mppee to the 1
the respondent gave an0fl1erkttct for ‘
:0fv.qet11wicv0:’¢erIificate; On 5.11.2001 respondent uequeeced the ~
1 e relating to oarncd team. On 11.11.2001
_ % % to the eeepeneen; the eeeepmee of his
‘V ‘ imted _§ettl_ina the dues-to him. the other
11111 by-£0109 a__11t_l L119
at 4’
WLUIIWUF IIIIV HI-Ivjvw IIUII-IIIII-I “ID |lIVVUllIU\I IIIJIII I-IIUIXIII
L3… .I..a.!_.. A. A1! 1 .n.. ……___…I.._.. -.L|__AA_,c 1- ___ A .0,
lllfl Illlvlfile LJII 3..l..I.e£UUl
the Inuuul rnqiannfi% Inn and he um: nauuuni-:I fiuun mlhndlna ,
&
2.1 .900! …-m M *–‘ ‘.1-.e –M a-. re–eke-6 u-1:1 fia’-Efi
orrnfiirnie 1 ._
mm: ofmponcient. he rained; dispute in 11) %
mm Court at Bansasm under Section 1o(4–A)._9fflIe’iD”A§$t;.
basis oflhe mama,’ the Labour Court
consideration:
C:
refused the work tohgm w.e;i 22.11.2001?
iii) –
iv) 1
1 on mm; held that the resignation letter dated
1 we: not an outcome offome or ooemion and that some wu –
acceptanoeof resignation on 17.11.2001. the respondent had
withdrawn/revoked his resignation on 5.11.2001 and crunch the
1- :\_
0″”
'v'v"neiher - zmaeuemrr I 339 5: is he' Us
acceptance o£mg’_m_t_::: g m E !..I.-:. C4.-2-..-4.-.u.-:*.l’_*,’ *’…-e~.’…–..’=.’:-at C6351
..na-…-ed. the in”.-H-“-:a.”.$ 3′.-.’a.-‘e’.% :.’w..fi1m ui€fifi’fii’|€ fif i.__fifi
A…’ .. ….. _ ,-____A -4, ;_,_ __ ,u. .-.c .
u’EI.”| “i:’sI”‘I3mIifiil. fiance’ twownrponnons. —
5. Head amuments on both K V’ V
writpapen.
6. I: is racas=a”i’:r’ at this ,fififii$e by
“‘3 Wm W’ its in 1987 (saw)
sec 223 Balram 1.51.: mg «in
modem and um=oraaL~;[ h one’: future wan.
aw is mquirod. and if 'Wk or_
be to respond and nhwwlpqga :11: ~
nexswigy ..n%…….g.. ma the wu.-.-4 so ‘.-s’é*’..:’.L.-a-.-.-.’ –
Iv V–‘II”l’WlOd.UCII I-II
_ but condemn ways ‘to ease –
‘ ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ . __ Inacoinfoitable omployeos.”
Iatlnnllni I’\Ln-ul-
ur
1:; Noni: Zone (.1m!I,1.ra! Cru-
I-
4I..L …._ .,_…._._-..2-_;:__ ,1: .1
luau Iull”uJIllllllllll6lll10ll OI I316
,-L4,./.\/¥
(J
.’-5-” fiiiaii Garlic’: hive been by T
fiannmviulwa v3. vvuynuu uruaimil :
‘F _ an u-nnntnnnn new line nriilule-mural
M. HI m’yH’w IIVJIIIV W VI’lIIllIllVI’I’El.c
A bench offllie com in Mmaemenc
Transport Corporation vs M.B.Rama|u’iehna 1m 2001 Ke_:_’ 82: T ‘ L
the cesium ‘on -becomes efifective only whenfile “chug
..–y.._ -.——–. –v.._’..– T.
his flfafilfztufi Id? nun-fig Iéhfi re-:a–Inf:4-nah
1. From the the renewing
principles will emerge:
(ii) – same day and acted upon then,
V_ _ of acceptance by the uppmprialae
‘ .:. ‘Gfi)A time before the communication of acceptance of
me offeter can withdraw memimuon;
.. matter of withdrawing flee resignation, the
ehouldbemacefulandflexible.
8. Though the respondent contends that on 2.11.2001 his
wasforciblyeec1u’edandtl;athewas|neven_ tedfi’oenattend1n_’g
to his duties is not moved and eetahliehed by placing acceptable evidence
OLA/~
(ii to _
u-rnrecfi ‘l’!~.cI..e.’.:o=.-.r
C”)
I
In-
– Lgrhtly concluded that the
ietter 2.ii.2″W1, lattfi fl rec.-as: 5!.-.tet! 2i11i20f_}1 for
certificate and the latter 5.ii.2\’i’:i fof We cf ‘sea-.’.’e
are not an outcome of force or coercion by the __
This conclusion ofthe Labour Couttis Jay _ V’: ” ~
H:
O-
E
3
‘:3
“– –~—.- of d..a1et.i is m §§ia~§?5
of the ‘ as
the letter of withdrawal of i”i:2_”uG1 i-.-,- w
W of 1fzfi1′._:2o§s;,:: a. …aa.a to A
authority’ ;’1*;.g_te¢l ouglttto hive allowed
the to The contention of the learned
it we: accepted and acted upon is .
to”:-Ve. M’.’.’.1 the on the side of the
eespomient was accepted that he was retiev-at %.
the other hand. the moon of the respondent that he was –
_ é from attendingto his duties in not seriously” challenged in the
Further Mm M. inhisevidencethutitietite preeidentof V
‘1″ ‘5 °””b”‘h_m°’_” i’_. ‘° .’F.°°P* .’3!° -“°’.ili”§”i°”- I
1: is not in dispute -that the reIponde1_1t_’e %
J
2.11.2001 was :9 £119 % l’.’.ll.-wl tire £’
-……i@ fl-.4 !efl..e.-‘ as-.53.-:-.2.-‘…-..ce. ‘I’§*ao-fare the 1%
2.ll.2’u}u”1″ii**iaccepfiecimdacie&’m1fiweanteday. –
Labour Court that the respondent withdrew his resignation ‘V
waeaccepted is eupportedhy evidence ‘ A
law.
19. –“um the % ma. 2.’ii_:;””i
% in: not The 5-
mm ‘ Courtheld tlutthe _ . Inthe facts
and oiI’c1nnetenoesuo§:titée in the
backwaaes of the Labour Court .
in in to interfere with the IIIBO.
. both the writ petition: are hereby \